**Document:** Officer Comments on Applications **Application:** 06/00339/B — Erection of a dwelling **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2006-07-21 **Parish:** Jurby **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/80187-jurby-plot-8-new-build-dwelling/documents/1464236 --- # Officer Comments on Applications Additional comments on planning applications: 06/00339/B (CSO Ref DF06/0005), Plot 8 Land adjacent to The Bretney 06/00462/B (CSO Ref DF06/0006), Plot 6 Land adjacent to The Bretney ### Obscure Glazing Plot 6: The proposed dwelling will be set 2.2m away from the boundary of plot no.7. I knowledge that the room it serves is a non-habitable room. The floor level of the room is set approximately 300mm which in turn reduces the height of the fencing to 1.5m when a person stands at the door. Therefore, it will be possible for a person to stand at the door and overlook the adjoining plot. However, the room would be used infrequently due to the non-habitable status. I therefore consider it may be unreasonable to impose a condition requiring the glass to be obscure glassed and therefore retract the suggested condition. Plot 8: The proposed dwelling will be set 2m away from the boundary of plot no.7. I knowledge that the rooms the door and windows serve are non-habitable rooms. The difference with this application compared to plot 6 is that the boundary treatment has not been provided on the submitted plans. However, I have noticed that I have not recommended a condition requiring details of the soft or hard landscaping for the proposed development. It could be argued that this detail could remove the need for the obscure glass condition. I therefore recommend that the obscure glass condition be substituted for the following condition: > “No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping works shall include boundary treatment; footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details within 3 months of the first occupation of the dwellinghouse hereby permitted; and any planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following that occupation. Any tree or shrub which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species, unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation. I consider this condition would migrate against any significant harm from overlooking and furthermore, it will clarify the landscaping features for the plot. ### Removal of Permitted Development Rights Class 14 (greenhouse), Class 15 (Extensions) & Class 16 (garden sheds and summer houses): The particular concern here with these classes can be the inappropriate siting of the structures in relation to the boundary of plot 7. Since no plans have been submitted for the development of this plot 7 it is not possible to understand the relationship of plots 6 and 8 with plot 7. I therefore consider it is important to protect the residential amenity of plot 7 in terms of overshadowing, overlooking or visual intrusion. Furthermore, Plot 6 is a corner plot and is possible to view the rear of the property from the public highway situated the south east of the site. The inappropriate siting of these structures and the accumulation effect of one or more structures could potentially impact on the visual amenities of the locality. I consider this is a secondary reason for the removal of these rights for plot 6. Class 17 (Fences and Gates) and Class 18 – The estate is essentially open plan in nature and any enclosure of the front gardens would essentially remove that openness of the street scene. I therefore consider the removal of this class would protect the openness and layout of the development. Class 19 (Private Garages) – The Permitted Development Order states that the erection of a garage is not permitted is there would be more than one private garage within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Both proposals will have private garages with their curtilages. Therefore, any further garage development would not be permitted anyway. The need for the removal of this Class would appear to be unnecessary. Class 20 (Domestic oil storage tanks) – A poorly sited oil tank without any screening would harm the visual amenities of the locality. I therefore consider the removal of this class is necessary to protect the visual amenities of the locality. Class 25 (Erection of flag pole) – I consider allowing both properties the right to erect flagpoles under the permitted development order could essentially allow two flag poles to be erected in a residential area. I consider the erection of the flag poles in this locality would appear out of character with the rest of the estate and harm the visual amenities of the locality. I therefore consider it would be appropriate for this class to be removed. Class 26 (Construction of decking) – Any decking permitted under this class would essentially be set to the rear of the properties to accord with the permitted development rights. Since, it would be to the rear. I consider any impact to be minimal and therefore development rights for decking should be allowed. In summary I suggest the following amended condition for both properties: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extension, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval). Comments on the amended plans for Plot 6 The minor amendment submitted by the applicant does not change my assessment. I believe the purpose of the amendment was in order to satisfactory the Department of Transport’s comment that “The garage dimensions are too small to accommodate an average sized vehicle and the development cannot provide two off street parking spaces.” In my opinion the amended garages dimension are acceptable and provide the necessary parking provision for the development. However, the submission of the amended plans does raise an issue with condition 2 in my previous report. This condition refers to the previous drawing numbers before any amendments submitted to the department. In light of this I recommend that the following condition should substitute condition 2 in my earlier statement. “This permission relates to the erection of a dwellinghouse as shown in drawing number 01 date stamped 14th March 2006 and drawing number 02 rev A, 03 rev A (Floor Plans), 03 rev A (Elevations) date stamped 18th May 2006. This comments have been prepared by Mr Ian Brooks BA(Hons), DipTP, MRTPI on behalf of the Planning Directorate of the Department of Local Government and the Environment. --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/80187-jurby-plot-8-new-build-dwelling/documents/1464236*